Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Eddy,

I can?t help but agree with a lot of your points.

I am going to avoid discussing the Sophia Centre as it is not my domain.

The unacceptable claims of some Indian astrologers which I had read about is actually part of the reason why I believe that the Indian rationalist group appeared to take the wrong (both philosophically and practically) approach. If they had targeted these abusive cases and consumer protection is the most effective way, they might have succeeded and with my blessing. However, they appear (and I stress this word appear because I have not read everything available) to have gone for a blanket approach of banning ?articles, advertisements, episodes and practices promoting astrology and related subjects like vaastu, Reiki, Feng Shui, tarot, palmistry and zodiac signs.? Would this blog be a banned article?

Now if your articles say that this is not correct and the rationalist group were only targeting specific cases of abuse then I stand corrected and they were clearly putting customer protection as a legitimate priority. However, if not they were imposing their fundamentalist rationalist beliefs over the interests of the consumer. If you have a problem with rogue plumbers, you don?t try to ban all plumbers ? unless you have a personal issue with plumbing.

Otherwise, I agree that the Ophiuchus red herring was a straw man argument (sorry to mix metaphors) that brought a huge number of astrologers including myself into the no-lose argument ? though the correction was essential. I also agree that one of the main reasons astrology gets bad publicity is not the field of astrology, but us astrologers. These are points, I have made elsewhere. However, as to your question about disassociation with media astrologers, I am tied between my loyalty to fellow astrologers and my loyalty to the integrity of astrology. It?s a bit like when a member of the family does something that?s not good ? do you stay loyal to family or distance yourself? I will think about this dilemma and if I get a better answer, I will post later.

I welcome a spirit of debate within astrology. We need it and I wish I could devote the time that it deserves. In general, I have found that exchange with sceptics who offer constructive points such as Geoffrey Dean (whom you have cited) has been very stimulating and given me greater clarity about how astrology could be improved. My great disappointment is that Dean will in my experience never concede a point favouring astrology or correct a misunderstanding that goes against astrology. This in my view undermines the credibility of everything that he has published, though I still admire his intellect. So my point is that from what I have read of your comments, this astrology blog will be the loser if you decide to leave.

~Robert

Thanks for joining the forum with your comments Robert.

Touching on some of the interesting points being made here, I can?t help thinking that a lot of the emotive fervour of the more extreme sceptical attacks are based on their fear of religious fundamentalism being able to suppress the advances of modern science; and their projection of that fear upon astrology.

It?s a misplaced projection because astrologers are mainly very-independent thinkers (they have had to be). I don?t think astrology can be divorced from relevance to the spiritual as Eddy suggests, but the word ?spiritual? can carry negative connotations to anyone who thinks that it involves religious doctrine (instead of it being about the creative and animating impulse which causes motion; the fundamental proof of ?life?).

When fear of religious fundamentalism becomes irrational and suppressive in itself then it becomes religious fundamentalism itself. Hence some of the sceptics show slavish and emotional attachments to keeping ideas stifled without examination, which is the very thing they claim to abhor.

For example, Brian Cox, described his attitude to astrologer?s complaints in his Huw Wheldon Lecture (Dec, 2010) saying:

The BBC asked me for a statement ? mine was, ?I apologise to the Astrology community for not making myself clear. I should have said that this New Age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilization.?

So here is an example of an extreme and irrational view on astrology; which he targets as being trivial and nonsense on one hand, but dangerous to society on another. What is really dangerous is when society (any society) loses sight of being balanced in its analysis and moderate in its opinions, so that issues get forced to emotive extremes which whip up inflamed reactions. Of course we astrologers have to be careful of not getting caught up in that too; but we need to be wary of it, and realise the dangers of it.

For the record, I?m agnostic myself and have never felt inclined toward any organised religion; although I think that all world religions and different world cultures all deserve respect. (As does astrology and all other holistic fields )

Deb

I also agree with your points Robert. Perhaps a report of the Bombay court will learn us more about the indictment and its rejection. I haven?t seen it yet, perhaps it will be there in a few months.

Also the loyalty dilemma, I can understand. There?s a danger of a slippery slope towards internal intolerance. Astrologers can condemn sun sign astrologers but might also go further and condemn those who use sidereal astrology. On the other side, I feel that plain abuse should be condemned. Perhaps a poor comparison but the abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are terrible but the initial carpet sweeping did even more harm. Hence the ethics codes are good means of self-regulation. Unfortunately, the internet makes it possible to spread all kinds of weird ideas.

And Deb, yes it?s rather the negative connotations with the spiritual that makes me wary. However spirituality in astrology is possible without its connection with the cosmos, ?up there?. As spirituality is an inner issue, the associations that take place in the mind with celestial events and which make astrology to work could be just as valuable as a living cosmos permeated with spirit.

And Cox appears to be right about the ?new age drivel? so his apologies seem sincere. I can?t really blame him if the shelves on astrology in the average book shop only contain sun-sign books, and if there?s astro.tv (at least in the Netherlands). And there are websites where people discuss their Ophiuchus sign and disasters related to a non-existing planet Niburu that would enter the solar system in 2012 (as if the solar system is just a couple of million km wide). Let?s hope this will stay at the margin.

I don?t intend to leave Robert, it?s only that I don?t have the time either to devote the time on this. It takes quite a few words to express my ambivalent feelings. Too short could be interpreted wrongly, too long is time consuming. Well I think we all are somewhere on the same track here, having to cope with both an unfair external representation of the subject as with the ones among the astrological community who cause this. And for the media, it?s the extremes that sell nowadays.

Hi Eddy

Its not the philosophy of astrology that influences descend from 'up there' but that they are integral within us, so what we see 'up there' is used as a reflection of what takes within. Hence the Pythagoran philosophy of the individual being the microcosm and the cosmos the macrocosm. This brings us back to the same place that you prefer to place the focus of the effect, within the mind, which is different from the sceptic view that it's gravitational influences affecting the brain. The philosophical analysis of what Mind represents is very deep, because the Mind is the anima (otherwise interpreted as breath, vital force, soul, animating force, spirit, etc).

But I can assure you that Brian Cox was not being sincere, and was not apologising, but was underlining his utter contemt for the whole of astrology as being nothing more than 'New Age drivel'. We are the 'irrational community' and people like Robert are deliberately targetted by Cox as supposedly "flying the flag for the irrational community" (ie, us). Here is a link a video extract of those comments, which Robert will already know a lot about since his Facebook page was used as the target for Cox's attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd0vW5wPjIQ

I am creating the opportunity to establish the Vaharamihira Chair in Jyotisa at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago -- there being no major Hindu presence there & major academic Diva (deva?) Wendy Doniger, acolyte of Mircea Eliade, is Gatekeeper to same. Prof. is my academic reader for my Master's thesis, which is a project ... 72 frame powerpoint presentation structuring an online AstroHistory course, which has to do with the Mayan Calendar & Tecumseh's Curse.

I've made some interesting discoveries in the composing of this. Namely, the part that Persia & the Magi played in developing modern, [b]pre-Hellenistic[/b] astrology -- Ben Dykes treats a much later, post-Christian Era version of Persian astrology.

The Beta version has been submitted and acknowledged, I am of course trolling around for a(n institutional) platform/forum/convention to present it

Sonja Foxe

Deb wrote:For example, Brian Cox, described his attitude to astrologer?s complaints in his Huw Wheldon Lecture (Dec, 2010) saying:

The BBC asked me for a statement ? mine was, ?I apologise to the Astrology community for not making myself clear. I should have said that this New Age drivel is undermining the very fabric of our civilization.?

This sounds familiar. Like points I was raising in correspondance with the Norweigian Ministry of Culture in the early 90's. The consequences of the New Age movement and cases where intentional misleading takes in aim to utilize the lack of understanding and competence of the general public in areas that deal with their personal life, trust and belief systems for the purpose of commercial profit. A meeting was attended with the ministry.
- Although in response to the statement of Cox I would have said that it was the drivel of commercialism that was in fact undermining the fabric of our civilization.

I would like to believe that my arguments in 1990-91 contributed to illuminating a social problem that was on the horizon at the time and on a different level the government did later appoint a 'Value Commision' (Bondevik, 1998), which purpose was to address certain social ethical problems and strenghten positive community values.

Wikipedia: Given the main goal of the mandate and limited steering the following objectives for the Commission's work: (1) Create greater awareness and reflection on the question of values and ethical issues. (2) Contribute to the analysis and dissemination of knowledge about the value-based development and the value of impact that actually happens. (3) Identify the current value-based ethical and societal challenges - and discuss possible responses. (4) Challenge to action. These objectives formed the basis for a whole range of projects Safety Commission initiated or participated in the implementation of.

Andrew Bevan wrote:Although in response to the statement of Cox I would have said that it was the drivel of commercialism that was in fact undermining the fabric of our civilization.

That's absolutely the case.

I've decided to go through my files and scan all documents from 80's and on that pertain to correspondance with government officials, ombudsmen on consumers rights, telecommunication administrations, newspaper editors regarding hoax astrology columns, etc - and their answers.

The problem is that the letters are in Norwegian and are not immediately available for an English audience.

I even have a letter from an office of national defence. The funny thing here was that they had forgotten to remove an internal memo that read that one of Norway's leading newspapers had shown interest in Bevan's letter and it was important to reply - in case the newspaper demanded to view their answer.